Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by robertk »

the Sammohavinodani (Vol. I, pages. 58-60):

"The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without the arising of the Tathaagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known without the arising of the Enlightened Ones; it is made known only on the arising of the Enlightened Ones. For such wanderers and ascetics (taapasa) as the master Sarabha.nga are mighty and powerful and are able to express ‘the impermanent and the painful’: [but] they are unable to express ‘no-self’. For if they were able to express ‘no-self’ in a present assembly, there would be penetration of path and fruition in the present assembly. For the making known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else; it is the province of the Fully Enlightened Ones only. Thus the characteristic of no-self is unobvious. That is why the Master, when teaching the characteristic of no-self, taught it by means of impermanence or by means of pain or by means of both impermanence and pain. But here it should be understood that he taught it by means of both impermanence and pain."
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by cappuccino »

Advaita teaches no self & higher self


no self is extreme, higher self is extreme


the middle way is different
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by cappuccino »

On Self, No Self, and Not-self


"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by equilibrium »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:25 pm Advaita teaches no self & higher self

no self is extreme, higher self is extreme

the middle way is different
…..nice…..the middle way…..the escape…..without grasping…..between extremes…..the unborn…..freedom from suffering and stress.
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by pegembara »

Escape from mortality not through immortality but by "amortality".
"I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth, sought what was likewise subject to birth. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, I sought [happiness in] what was likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement. The thought occurred to me, 'Why do I, being subject myself to birth, seek what is likewise subject to birth? Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, why do I seek what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement? What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding?'
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
The sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, he is not shaken and does not yearn.”
Heedfulness is the Deathless path, heedlessness, the path to death. Those who are heedful do not die, heedless are like the dead.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
SarathW
Posts: 21238
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by SarathW »

I think nihilst teaches Anatta.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by TRobinson465 »

SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:57 am I think nihilst teaches Anatta.
No, nihilists teach no self, not non-self. tho i dont think nobody in history besides Buddhas has taught non-self either, although maybe the exact teaching is unique to Buddhas. Just as nibbana is taught by hindus even though the concept is different than what is taught by the Buddhas.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by un8- »

Most people misunderstand anicca, but if one properly understands anicca then anatta is properly undestood. If one properly understands anicca, then one properly understands anatta, and this "no-self" vs "not-self" false dichotomy becomes irrelevant.

No other philosophy/ideology/religion teaches Anicca as it is meant to be understood.

I'll offer some clues

Satipatthana sutta:
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself.
Gellanna sutta, which explains the Satipatthana sutta further:
"As he is dwelling thus mindful & alert — heedful, ardent, & resolute — a feeling of pain arises in him. He discerns that 'A feeling of pain has arisen in me. It is dependent on a requisite condition, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on this body. Now, this body is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. Being dependent on a body that is inconstant, fabricated, & dependently co-arisen, how can this feeling of pain that has arisen be constant?
Anicca means dependency, and therefore Instability, the idea of flux (always changing) is only a small characteristic of it, and not the main takeaway.

The central point in anicca is dependency, if something is dependent and conditined, that already implies anatta because it shows you have no say in the matter since the condition it is dependent on is not "you".

A leaf sways left and right when it falls due to its own variables, this has nothing to do with you. Most people realize this. People even realize that the hair on their head grows whether or not they have a say in the matter.

However what the average person believes 100% is in their control is intention, attention, feelings, and the other components of nama, and that's why a self arises there.

Realizing anicca properly, that it arises based on conditions and is therefore dependent and unstable, inherently leads to the realization of dukkha and anicca.

So the problem of no-self vs not-self only arises from improperly understanding anicca, which I would translate as something along the lines of dependent and unstable instead of "Impermanence"..
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by Ontheway »

SarathW wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:57 am I think nihilst teaches Anatta.
Lord Buddha taught Anatta concept, and Lord Buddha wasn't a nihilist.

Ananda Sutta (SN44.10) demonstrated the position of Lord Buddha in this matter best.

“Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘atthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘atthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā sassatavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa. Ahañcānanda, vacchagottassa paribbājakassa ‘natthattā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘natthattā’ti byākareyyaṁ, ye te, ānanda, samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā tesametaṁ saddhiṁ abhavissa."
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by robertk »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:25 pm Advaita teaches no self & higher self


no self is extreme, higher self is extreme


the middle way is different
Mod note: Please study the guidelines for this forum " Classical Theravada".
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by sphairos »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:31 am Buddhism does not even teach no self
in the commentaries (Classsical Theravāda) they say that self does not exist.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by Sam Vara »

The OP seems very similar to this important passage from the MN:
Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance…therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.
https://suttacentral.net/mn11/en/bodhi

The whole sutta is an exposition of how anattā is uniquely the Buddha's teaching.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by robertk »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:01 pm The OP seems very similar to this important passage from the MN:
Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance…therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.
https://suttacentral.net/mn11/en/bodhi

The whole sutta is an exposition of how anattā is uniquely the Buddha's teaching.
Yes indeed! :namaste:
Padipa
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:22 pm

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by Padipa »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:26 pm On Self, No Self, and Not-self


"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
BINGO!
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Only the Buddha's teach anatta.

Post by mjaviem »

un8- wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:20 am Most people misunderstand anicca...
... which I would translate as something along the lines of dependent and unstable instead of "Impermanence"..
Do you mean the "... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and ceasing..." in MN 74 or you mean something else?
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Post Reply